An eight-person jury determined Tuesday that Williams and Thicke copied elements of Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up” and ordered the pair to pay nearly $7.4 million to the late R&B legend’s three children.

Millions more in potential future profits for “Blurred Lines” are now also at stake.

The Gaye family will seek an injunction against the song, which will give them leverage to negotiate for royalties and other concessions such as songwriting credit, although Tuesday’s verdict could face years of appeals.

While the verdict affects Thicke and Williams’ finances in the short term, artists and music industry lawyers will likely face new constraints as they sort through the verdict and its implications.

Howard King, lead attorney for Thicke and Williams, said in closing arguments that a verdict for the Gaye family would have a chilling effect on musicians trying to evoke an era or create an homage to the sound of earlier artists. Williams contended during the trial that he was only trying to mimic the “feel” of Gaye’s late 1970s music but insisted he did not use elements of his idol’s work.

“Today’s successful verdict, with the odds more than stacked against the Marvin Gaye estate, could redefine what copyright infringement means for recording artists,” said Glen Rothstein, an intellectual property attorney.

He said the decision sets a precedent because “paying homage to musical influences was an acceptable, and indeed commonplace way of conducting business and even showing respect for one’s musical idols, (but) after today, doubt has been cast on where the line will be drawn for copyright infringement purposes.”

Music copyright trials are rare, but allegations that a song copies another artist’s work are common. Singers Sam Smith and Tom Petty recently reached an agreement that conferred songwriting credit to Petty on Smith’s song, “Stay With Me,” which resembled Petty’s hit “I Won’t Back Down.”

In the “Blurred Lines” case, the Gaye family will seek an injunction against the song, giving them leverage to negotiate for royalties and other concessions such as songwriting credits.

Nona Gaye, the late singer’s daughter, wept as the verdict was read and later told reporters: “Right now, I feel free. Free from … Pharrell Williams’ and Robin Thicke’s chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told.”

Larry Iser, an intellectual property lawyer who has represented numerous musicians such as Jackson Browne and David Byrne in music copyright cases, criticized the verdict.

“Although Gaye was the Prince of Soul, he didn’t own a copyright to the genre, and Thicke and Williams’ homage to the feel of Marvin Gaye is not infringing,” Iser said.

King, the pair’s lawyer, said record labels are going to become more reluctant to release music that’s similar to other works — an assertion disputed by Richard Busch, the lead attorney for the Gaye family.

“While Mr. Williams’ lawyer suggested in his closing argument that the world would come to an end, and music would cease to exist if they were found liable, I still see the sun shining,” Busch said. “The music industry will go on.”

“For Pharrell, the story moves on,” he said. “It will move on quickly.”

Williams, 41, is a seven-time Grammy Award winner whose songs he’s performed or produced have sold more than 100 million copies worldwide. His hit “Happy” has helped make him a household name, as has his work as a judge on NBC’s music competition show, “The Voice.”

“It’s much to Pharrell’s advantage that he is at a high point in his career,” Levy said.

Thicke’s career may have more issues as a result of Tuesday’s verdict — which came on his 38th birthday — because “Blurred Lines” was a global hit and his follow-up effort failed to connect with audiences, Levy said. Despite the song’s popularity, feminists have criticized it, saying it promotes rape culture.

While the verdict will likely make musicians and record labels more cautious, it won’t stop artists from using others’ works as inspiration, Levy said.

Despite the decision, he predicted that “Blurred Lines” will continue to make plenty of money for Williams, Thicke and, in all likelihood, the Gaye family.

“People aren’t going to stop playing it,” Levy said. “It’s not just going to disappear.”

5 thoughts on “‘Blurred Lines’ Victory Could Change Music Industry”

I don’t think the songs sound similar at all! I grew up listening to Marvin and would never have suggested that Blurred Lines and Got to give it up were the same. Now to hear the family is thinking about suing for Pharrell for the Happy song. I just think they are going too far, it’s unfortunate that their dad didn’t leave them much, but Robin, Pharrell and T.I. worked to receive their millions for that song and have people come along and get paid is horrible. And, can someone tell me what is Nona crying for? That family has been through a great deal more than this, with their grandfather killing their drugged up “talented” father! Move on people, move on.

Why are people mad at the Gaye family for suing instead of being mad at Robin and Pharrell. Robin tried to give them $600,000.00 to make them go away as if they were ignorant and just needed some money. That was a insult and he was calling them stupid by doing that. I am glad they didn’t take the money. If this was Elvis or Frank Sinatra folks would be appalled at people using their work without their permission. Black people needs to educate themselves about protecting their intellectual property. Chuck Berry sued the Beach Boys and Little Richard sued Pat Boone. My all time favorite when the Isley Brothers sued Michael Bolton and he had the nerve to stand in front of the NAACP with a check, I hope the Gaye family started something that should have been done years ago, No other race has been musically hijacked more than black people. So if you want to be mad be mad about that and be happy about the Gaye victory.

I dont understand why this particular decision would cause such change! Williams and Thicke both being veterans of the Music Industry Know FULL WELL the Laws and Rules of Infringement ! I have nothing for them I think the possibility of them getting away with this process before May have made them comfortably confident that they could do it business as usual! The rules Apply to everyone, NO EXCEPTIONS!